A resolution making majority party appointments to certain Senate committees for the 109th Congress.

Madam President, I am sad to hear a Senator say that this amendment that is controversial, the amendment to allow exploration and development of the Arctic Coastal Plain, has never passed the Senate. It passed the Senate this year as part of the reconciliation package. It passed both bodies in 1995 and was vetoed by President Clinton.

With regard to the question of the concept of matters being added to conference reports, we voted in 1995 on a motion to overturn the Chair. It was a motion to overturn the Chair on the aviation reauthorization reform bill. It was the last bill before the Congress at that time. At that time, there was an appeal from the Chair, and there was a vote to overturn the Chair. The Chair was not sustained. On that vote, there were a series of Senators, here now, who voted to disagree with the Chair.

We are not changing the rules at all. Rule XXVIII is not affected by the amendment I am presenting to the Senate. I have been around here 37 years. I know the rules. I was chairman of the Rules Committee for a while. As a matter of fact, I think I wrote, during the time I was Rules Committee chair--I am still on the Rules Committee--the comments the Senator read.

As a practical matter, the right to disagree with a ruling of the Chair is inherent in any body, any legislature. In Roberts Rules of Order, it is a little different than it is here. But we have the right to appeal the ruling of the Chair. When we do, it is not destroying the rule. It represents a difference of opinion.

Do you know what the difference of opinion now is? It is whether this amendment, which is the amendment to go forward, as the Congress indicated in 1980 in the Alaska National Interest Conservation Lands Act, with the exploration and development of the Arctic Plain of Alaska, whether that is part of and related to national security.

Oil is related to national security. I will provide the statistics later on how much oil the Department of Defense uses. This is an amendment to pursue domestic production of oil, without which we will be in great difficulty. The largest consumer of oil in the United States is the Department of Defense. If the opposition disagrees with us on that position, then let's see whether the Senate believes that this is a matter that is in the interest of national security.

We should not be having people say that it has never been done, that I am trying to do something that breaks the rules. We don't break the rules. We are living by the rules. This amendment is here because of the rules. I intend to enforce the rules. One of the procedures in this Senate is to appeal the ruling of the Chair. We haven't had that ruling yet. There appears to be a presumption that it will happen.

But let's go back to 1980, to that time when we had the Alaska oil pipeline amendment. At that time, we had the same opposition from the extreme environmental groups. It was going to destroy Alaska. It was going to destroy caribou. It was going to be inconsistent with our environment. There was no filibuster. There wasn't even the threat of filibuster. The Senate at that time agreed that oil was a matter of national security, and we don't filibuster national security issues. As a matter of fact, in defense matters, on the defense Appropriations bill, et cetera, we need 51 votes, not 60, on various matters with regard to compliance and whatnot of the Senate. There are exceptions here. They could get a couple of 60-degree votes when we have this bill before the Senate.

But the point I am trying to make is, the Senate, at the time we passed the Alaska oil pipeline amendment, did not filibuster. What has happened is the constant filibuster now during this decade by people who persist in trying to reverse the provisions of the 1980 act.

I will never forget the 1980 act because that act, in 1978, had been blocked by my then-colleague, Senator Gravel, in the closing minutes of the Congress in 1978. It had passed the House. It passed the Senate. It had gone to conference. It came out of conference, and Senator Gravel blocked that by demanding that the bill be read after the adjournment resolution had been presented to the Senate.

In the next Congress in 1979, my good friend Senator Jackson of Washington came to me and said: Ted, if you want to be involved in consideration of this bill this year, you must come back to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. I had left that committee to come to the Appropriations Committee. But as a matter of fact, I did. I left the Appropriations Committee and went back to the Interior and Insular Affairs Committee. We worked on that same bill then for 1979 and 1980.

That was a period of extreme stress for me. I lost my wife in the 1978 accident that happened after the blocking of that bill. We all knew that we had to

come back in. As a matter of fact, the flight we were on was a flight to raise money to come back and ask people to help us lobby for the passage of something to get that bill done.

At that time Alaska's selection of lands under the act were blocked by what was called a freeze. They were blocked by an order made by President Carter under the Antiquities Act. We could not go forward without getting an act passed. So I split off from my then-colleague and said: I am going to help you. I only want one thing in this bill for sure. And that is, I wanted the right to continue to explore the Arctic Plain. The two Senators in charge of that bill, Senator Tsongas of Massachusetts, Senator Jackson of Washington said: You are right. And they put in the amendment that created section 2002 in the 1980 Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. It was their amendment.

These people are filibustering fulfilling the commitment of Senator Tsongas and Senator Jackson. As a matter of fact, I did vote for that bill and, at the time, there were enormous full-page ads in newspapers in my State which said: Come home, Ted. You no longer represent us. We can't trust the Congress.

I said: I trust the Congress. I particularly trust Senator Tsongas and Senator Jackson. Unfortunately, God willed otherwise. Those two gentlemen left us prematurely and, as a consequence, we have fought now for 25 years to fulfill that commitment.

Let me tell you a little bit more history, Madam President. I was in the Department of Interior during the Eisenhower days. In 1958, I helped write the order that created what was known as the Arctic Wildlife Range. In that range, 9 million acres in northeast Alaska, oil and gas exploration was permitted.

The reason I asked for this amendment in 1980 was that I wanted to continue the fact that oil and gas exploration would be permitted.

I see I am close to the end of my time. I will finish my statement later; others want to speak but I want to finish with this one comment, with the permission of the Chair.

I am not trying to turn over the rules. I am not trying to do anything that others have not done. We have a full right to appeal the ruling of the Chair, should it take place, that we disagree with the basic assumption that oil is not needed in the interest of national security. And those of us who will vote to make sure we vote on this conference report are ones who believe in national security. We cannot mention the vote in the House, but we can mention the statements in the House. See what they said on the House floor. We believe in national security. This amendment must go through as part of the National Security Defense Appropriations Act of 2005.

I yield the floor. I will be back throughout the day, Madam President.

The Senator didn't say that.

Madam President, is it possible for me to regain the floor?

Madam President, let me say this. If it was possible to have an appeal of the ruling of the Chair in 1996, it is possible now. That is not breaking the rules. With regard to the version of this bill, we took the bill that passed the House and have added to it the provisions that allow funding for disaster areas and other items, but the basic portion of this bill that is coming to us in this amendment is, in fact, the bill that passed the House before.

Again, I want to say this. I think there is a lot of really extreme comments about this Senator's actions. They can't come close to really offending the rules themselves. I have done nothing illegal. I have done nothing immoral. I have done nothing wrong. I am pursuing--as a matter of fact, there hasn't been a ruling of the Chair yet, but thinking there might be, we followed the procedure that was established by the distinguished minority leader in 2000. We put a provision in there saying, look, if there is a ruling and consideration of this amendment, we do not want to disturb the rules.

By the way, after the aviation ruling that I mentioned, the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Reform Act, the rule wasn't changed; it was the interpretation of the Parliamentarian. The Parliamentarian believes that after a Chair is overruled, the rule is no longer enforceable. It is still there, but it is a question of enforcement, not a question of repealing.

Even if we have an appeal of the Chair, and the Chair is overruled, we won't take rule XXVIII out of the rules. It will be a question of whether the Parliamentarian will tell the Chair that based upon precedent that rule would no longer be enforceable.

So we put a provision in the bill saying in the event a ruling of the Chair is overturned and there is a situation where the Parliamentarian would advise the Chair that means rule XXVIII is no longer enforceable, then we use the same approach of the Senator from Nevada, and we say that will not be the case. We do not intend to destroy the rule. We intend to support the rule. We don't want it to be in hiatus.

After the 1996 act, it was inoperable for 4 years because of the interpretation of the Parliamentarian, based upon precedent. I am not criticizing the Parliamentarian; that is the basic precedent of the Senate. Once the Chair is overruled, that rule is unenforceable until reinstated. We are saying that is not our intent this time. We don't intend to attack the rule. We want the rule to stay in place. We want to make sure anybody who votes for this, in the national security interest, that we must proceed with oil exploration in the Arctic, is not being told, Oh, you are going to destroy rule XXVIII. It wasn't destroyed in 1996. It was made inoperable by an interpretation of the Parliamentarian.

By the way, again, that was consistent with precedent. We are saying that precedent will not apply to this bill, the Department of Defense appropriations bill, when it comes before the Senate.

This is going to go on for a long time, but one thing I know is that I am not violating the rules. When I proceed with this amendment in the conference report, which I fully intend to do, and trust the Senate--I am putting my faith in the Senate to support national security as a part of the conference report.

Remember now, we don't have an amendment. We have a conference report now. That is treated in a different manner than an amendment to the bill. I am not offering an amendment to the bill. I am managing a conference report on the Defense appropriations bill for 2006. As such, I expect that bill to pass, and I expect that bill to pass containing the provision which is in the interest of national security, that we now proceed with exploration and development of the Arctic Plain as was intended by two great Senators, Senator Scoop Jackson and Senator Tsongas. It was their concession to the State of Alaska, as President Carter insisted on withdrawing 105 million acres of Alaska. Only 1.5 million acres were assured for the future development of our State. One point five million were assured for the future development of the State, and 105 acres were set aside and not available for development. There can be no oil and gas development in those other areas. In this area,

we allowed 1.5 million acres to stay open for development.

More will be said later. I thank the Chair for her patience.

Madam President----

Pardon me. I apologize.

Madam President, I again apologize to the Senator from Nevada. I thought he had completed his statement.

I want to read to the Senate the comments I made in 1996 at the time the point of order was pending on the FAA conference report, just to show I have maintained a constant position with regard to this. I said this:

Mr. President, this is a rather difficult situation. We

have just passed, recently, a Defense appropriations bill. I

was the chairman of that conference. Before it was over, we

had a whole series of other bills, a series of legislative

items. It was not necessary to raise a point of order.

Everybody knew we had exceeded the scope of the conference.

Now, this is 1996. I am again quoting:

I ask any chairman of a conference if he or she has ever

really been totally restricted by this rule? . . . When the

leader became aware that Senator Kennedy was going to raise

this point of order, the leader determined to raise it

himself. I take it that having done that, there is no

question this is a rather significant occasion. I hope it

will be a rather narrow precedent.

I point out to the Senate that this provision is not only

the only matter that exceeds the scope of the conference. We

had to include, at this administration's request, special

authority for the executive branch to purchase and deploy

explosive detection devices. We put in here the provisions

that pertain to the rights of survivors of victims of air

crashes. We put in the provisions requiring passenger

screening companies to be certified by the FAA. That is not

required under any existing law. We put in restrictions on

underage pilots, following the one disaster that involved a

young girl who was a pilot. We put in a provision requiring

the FAA to deal with structures that interfere with air

commerce.

My point is, as we get to the end of a session, we, of

necessity, include in a bill extraneous matters totally

beyond the scope. We know they are beyond the scope. As

the chairman of the Defense Appropriations Committee, I

knew all those items we brought to the floor earlier this

week were beyond the scope of the conference, but we did

not anticipate anyone would raise a point of order.

Anticipating that Senator Kennedy would bring this point of

order before the Senate, the leader made this point of order.

I ask the Senate to keep in mind this will be a rather

limited precedent, in my opinion. I do not know whether the

Chair will agree with me, but clearly when you get to the end

of a Congress, some things have to be done. We did not have

time to take up separate bills. We held a hearing on the bill

in the Senate Commerce Committee dealing with the rights of

victim-survivors of air disasters. They pleaded with us to

include that bill in this legislation. We have done so.

In other words, this point of order is not only valid, in

my judgment, against the amendment offered by Senator

Hollings, but against the other provisions where we have

exceeded the scope on various matters on this bill.

What I am saying is we have had this process year after year. I know of other amendments that have gone into bills like this at the last minute where people tried to get passed something that did not pass before, and because of the circumstances they passed.

In this instance, again, the Senate is going to hear this over and over again, that this is a matter of national security that I have for 25 years tried to support the position taken by the Senator from Washington and the Senator from Massachusetts that this area should be open to oil and gas exploration. We have had two environmental impact statements. They have proved that no permanent damage will be done to this area. We have disproved all the allegations concerning destruction of wildlife. As a matter of fact, there are seven to eight times more caribou on the North Slope today than there were at the time the oil pipeline was built and at the time we were told if that pipeline is built there will never be another caribou in Alaska, in effect. They said we would destroy it.

The other day, they called it the Serengeti. I do not want to point out the Senator who said it, but one Senator went up there and viewed it. When that Senator got off the helicopter, that Senator said: What the blank is this all about? That person had looked over the area when it was snowing and said: Why would someone possibly block this?

I have to say that this is the beginning of a long debate. I yield the floor.

Will the Senator yield?

I agree. I agree with the statement the Senator read. I think that is true. I am not accusing anyone of delay. I would be happy to have a time agreement on the conference report, and I would be happy to have a time agreement on any type of point of order or motion to be raised on the conference report. I will be glad to have a vote on the conference report by voice vote if it passes. I am anxious to let people get home. I will be happy to get time agreements, and I do believe if we lose we can go back to conference and protect the Department of Defense.

I am not accusing anyone of harming the Department of Defense. I am urging people to think about national defense.

Would the Senator agree to any type of time agreement?

Good.

I thank the Senator. I think that is the way to go.

Madam President, I wish to bring to the attention of the body the extremely troubling tactics that some in this body have used over the past few days to try to push through a legislative proposal that, standing on its own, does not have the support of a majority of the U.S. Congress. And I think these tactics reflect poorly on this body and its leadership. Discarding the rules that govern all of us demonstrates contempt not only for the need to have and follow rules, but for the history, and future, of the United States Senate.

To be clear, I am talking about the inclusion of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge drilling provision in the Department of Defense appropriations bill, a provision we all know is controversial and has not been able to pass Congress on a variety of occasions.

Drilling in the Arctic has absolutely nothing to do with funding the Defense Department. The distinguished minority leader has already submitted into the Record a letter from five retired U.S. generals who are arguing this very point: Funding for our brave men and women in uniform should not be jeopardized by including a highly controversial and unrelated provision to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for drilling.

I ask unanimous consent that this letter be again printed in the Record.

Thank you, Madam President.

For the benefit of my colleagues, I would like to read from the Senate's Web page and the Web page of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration--the very places the American public would refer to when interested in learning how the Senate has said it will conduct business. I have printed copies of the relevant pieces of these U.S. Government Web sites, and I ask unanimous consent that these be printed in the Record.

Thank you, Madam President.

Let me start with reading from the Senate Web page's description of the legislative process--our description to

the public as to how we do business in our Nation's Capitol.

Under the heading ``Conference Committees; reports; open meetings,'' the first sentence reads:

2. Conferees shall not insert in their report matter not

committed to them by either House, nor shall they strike from

the bill matter agreed to by both Houses.

This section goes on in more detail, but let me turn to what our constituents, members of the public whom we expect to abide by the laws we pass, would find if they visited the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Web site:

All legislative bodies need rules to follow if they are to

transact business in an orderly fashion. Legislatures must

have established rules if they are to operate fairly,

efficiently, and expeditiously.

The committee Web site goes on to quote from Thomas Jefferson's 1801 edition of the ``Manual of Parliamentary Practice,'' saying that:

. . . whether the rules ``be in all cases the most rational

or not, is really not of so great importance. It is much more

material that there should be a rule to go by than what the

rule is; that there may be a uniformity of proceeding in

business, not subject to the caprice of the Speaker or

captiousness of the members. It is very material that order,

decency, and regularity be preserved in a dignified public

body.''

A logical follow-up question is then: How is it that we find it acceptable to knowingly break our own rules? I am truly astonished at the contempt I see certain of my colleagues showing for this institution on this issue.

I could stand here and read at length from the history of the Senate rules, as written by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, to reflect on how our rules came to be. I will not do that. But I do encourage my colleagues to read up on this history, because if we go forward on the path that some have set, I worry what it means for the future of this body. It most definitely opens the door to future abuses. If you don't like the rules, you break them. In fact, those who want the drilling provision included in the defense spending bill, recognizing that it breaks Senate rules, have actually put language into the conference report that says once the bill is signed into law, Senate rule 28 would come back into effect.

In fact, let me read the exact language:

Section 13, Legislative Procedure: Effective immediately,

the Presiding Officer shall apply all of the precedents of

the Senate under rule 28 in effect at the beginning of the

109th Congress.

So apparently you can break the rules because you will immediately reinstate the rules. Is this the message the Senate is willing to send to the American public? I have more faith in this body than to believe we are willing to sink so low.

Let's imagine the consequences if, in fact, this conference report is accepted. You can't move an unpopular proposal through the legislative process? No need to worry. You just attach language to an important funding bill that says you want to reinstate the rules after you have broken them. Is this the precedent that we, Members of both parties, want to set, a precedent that says you can break the rules because you will put them back in place? I sincerely hope not.

Additionally, how will we respond when our constituents ask us, how is it that the very people who make the laws that govern public behavior simply ignore the rules governing their own behavior? What will we say?

Madam President, I hope when it comes time for the Senate to go on record as to whether it believes its rules are important enough to stand, that a majority of this body will take the honorable position that this institution's rules are worth defending.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I wish to make a couple quick points regarding the remarks of the Senator from Alaska.

Let's be clear, the Senate has never passed the version of the Arctic drilling that is included in this Department of Defense bill. That is simply not the case.

The Senator indicated we passed this provision before, and we had not. And if the Senator is not breaking the rules, why does he need to create language that explicitly reinstates the rule? He can't have it both ways--have language that says the rule doesn't apply in this instance but will go right back into effect. It clearly is breaking the rule, and the Senator is trying to set a precedent for all this. The aviation bill from the midnineties--I remember that one--they didn't have the votes to put in this special interest provision for Federal Express business. It is something that never passed any committee in the whole Congress. Yes, they violated the rules and abused the rules to get that one done, too. I wouldn't use that as a precedent. It is merely a precedent of the abuse that is occurring here.

Parliamentary inquiry, Madam President: If the Chair is overruled on rule XXVIII exceeding the scope point of order, would that set a precedent that would lower the standard for enforcement of that rule to such an extent as rendered almost impossible to enforce?

Madam President, let me say this. Clearly what is being attempted by the distinguished Senator from Alaska is wrong. As the Senator will recall, we had another Parliamentarian who was fired over a matter similar to this. This is absolutely wrong what is being attempted here.

This is the Defense appropriations bill, and to wave the flag of national defense, even at the very best, if ANWR goes forward, it will be 10 years before any oil is produced. Oil companies made, as I indicated last night, $100 billion last year. This is a speck of oil if, in fact, it goes forward.

I know how strongly the Senator from Alaska feels about it. Why not do it the right way? Even though I voted against this being inserted in the reconciliation, which I think was wrong, it was done according to the rules, and the Senator from Alaska and what he wanted prevailed. To do it this way is absolutely wrong. It shows that if it is inconvenient, if the rules are inconvenient, then just overrule them. We will play around with it. We will sustain the Parliamentarian at one point, overrule him in another, and then come back in the same bill and pretend as if nothing had ever happened. This has never been done before.

It shows absolute contempt for the rules of this body, and it shows that Lord Acton was right. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely. That is what we have here. That is what is going on in Washington.

I will be happy to run through what I think are the ethical lapses that have taken place in this town, led by the Republicans over the past year, but that is not necessary. I believe what we have is intellectual games being played in a negative fashion. This is absolutely wrong to do this, to hold up this bill.

We will have a vote. As things now stand, we will vote on cloture probably on Wednesday. Following that cloture vote, there will be a vote in upholding the ruling of the Chair, and we will see what happens at that time. The votes are very close. I would not be a betting person either way on either cloture or this rule, but understand that sticking this in this bill has nothing to do with the national defense of this country. It has everything to do with breaking the rules to the convenience of the powerful.

I am disappointed that this happened. I think it is wrong. I think when the history of this body is written, if this is allowed to go forward, it will be a dark day in the Senate.

Madam President, let me just finish. I have one additional thing to say.

I will be finished just quickly.

Regarding conversations we had on this floor about this has been done before, returning to the Chair and later fixing it, it has not been done before. This is a unilateral fix of a precedent in the same bill. Anything that has been done before has been done on a bipartisan basis. I was part of changing it back with Senator Trent Lott. It was the right thing to do. Scope of conference is very important. It should not be changed willy-nilly. It should not be changed because it is inconvenient. The precedents of this body are extremely important, and I think they are being played with at this time. It is really unfortunate.

Madam President, if a Senate filibuster over ANWR stops a Defense bill, the legislation can be quickly modified and passed. So there is no impact on military finances. If someone proposing this loses, then we will reconstitute the conference and ANWR will be out. Now, this is not me talking. This is the distinguished

President pro tempore of the Senate, Mr. Stevens, quoted in yesterday's Fairbanks Daily News-Miner.

Senator Stevens said: If the Senate filibuster stops the Defense bill, the legislation will be quickly modified and passed. There is no impact on military finances. If we lose, the distinguished Senator went on to say, we will reconstitute the conference and ANWR will be out.

That is the point. I appreciate the honesty of the interview with my friend from Alaska with this newspaper because that is the way it is. If we prevail, that is, those who oppose this being in the bill, on the point of order which will likely be on Wednesday, then the Defense bill goes forward. No one voting on this point of order will stop the Defense bill. No one voting for cloture will stop the Defense bill. This bill will go forward. There is a continuing resolution that takes us to the end of the year, and we need not get that far. If, in fact, we have a majority of the Senators who vote on this point of order and it prevails, then the bill will go forward, just as the Senator from Alaska said yesterday in the Fairbanks newspaper.

So I would hope that there would come a time--we could go home today. We could be finished today. The Senator from Alaska knows he has the votes to do what he did on reconciliation again. As soon as the new session of this Congress convenes, we could take this out and goodwill would prevail. We would go home tonight, and we would be home 4 or 5 days before Christmas.

I am happy to yield.

I will be happy to consider anything that is reasonable. I am sure there are things we can do.

One of the things I think would be appropriate, the way I understand things now, if everything is here by midnight tonight and cloture is filed, there will be a Wednesday cloture vote. After that Wednesday cloture vote, there will be a vote on this point of order. That would be Wednesday.

If it is necessary that there be cloture invoked on the Defense authorization bill--and I am not sure that is necessary, but it is possible--the two cloture votes would be back to back.

So I would be happy to consider working out some reasonable time agreement. Maybe we could even have the vote on the point of order first.

I send a resolution to the desk and ask for its consideration.

I ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to.

Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.

I move to lay that motion on the table.

The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.